Summary

Facts

Following a take-over by D of the bank that employed C, C was employed by D between 1999 and 2001 in a private client tax role. After C had left this role, D published a press release which C claimed bore a meaning that he had been responsible for allowing illegal tax related transactions which had led to lower earnings for the bank. C advanced a case of malice against the management board of D and 2 managers said to have been responsible for the parts of the press release that gave rise to the claim. D pleaded common law qualified privilege, based on publication in line with financial regulation. D brought a wide-ranging application for summary judgment.

Issue

Whether:

(1) there was any real prospect of defeating qualified privilege;

(2) there was any real prospect of demonstrating that the two managers had published the statements complained of;

(3) the malice plea advanced against members of D’s board was fit to go to a jury.

Held

Dismissing two of the applications and allowing the claim to go forward to trial,

(1) Duty/interest qualified privilege did not expire with the passage of time between the relevant period for the press release’s publication and later, fresh publications of it on databases. The law would be rendered unworkable by such a principle.

(2) Mere denials of the two managers’ involvement was insufficient. No explanation for how the publication had come about was given by D and C’s case on their involvement was not incredible but probable and C’s case on this point could proceed to trial.

(3) There was no sustainable case on malice on the part of D’s board members.

Comment

Besides the novel discussion regarding the effect of the passage of time on the protection afforded to a publication by common law qualified privilege, this summary judgment application is notable as a further example of anonymity being granted to witnesses in defamation proceedings—on this occasion because the allegations put forward in the Particulars of Claim were judged to be of career-threatening seriousness for those they were made against.

Also

Latest cases

More from 5RB

2018 Chambers and Partners on 5RB2018 Chambers and Partners on 5RB

5RB is the pre-eminent set in the area for handling defamation, privacy, contempt and data protection matters. Interviewees praise the set for having great depth and quality of counsel, and note that it boasts many of the top barristers in the field. Get the lowdown here.

New 22nd Edition of Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, published by Sweet & Maxwell. Further info here.

Golden Eye 'Pay or Else' LetterGolden Eye 'Pay or Else' Letter

In this article, first published onLexis®PSL IP & IT , 5RB‘s Christina Michalos looks at the issues surrounding speculative/volume invoicing (“pay or else”) for copyright infringement in relation to downloading from file sharing websites. Read the full articlehere.